A Note: Global Warming Threads

[arfa brane]

Yes, Russian Subs might be having problems with methane bubbles in a certain area of the Arctic but that doesn't mean that the quantity being released is sufficient to even show up on a GLOBAL scale

So when do you estimate that the quantity being released will show up on a GLOBAL scale? Or are you still happy with 2% "for ever and ever amen"?

Why is it you come across as being so sure that there isn't a problem? Does the IPCC say Arctic melting isn't a problem, the global contribution is 2% and it's going to stay there forever? If that's what they're saying they aren't being very realistic are they? How about you?

I have NO IDEA what point you are you trying to make.

Perhaps I can help with that.
You have consistently maintained that methane FROM THE ARCTIC isn't a problem, but you produced data that is at least 2 years old to support this. You also maintain that the contribution is 2% as if this is never going to change. The point I'm making is that SCIENTISTS are claiming different things than you are, even with all the research you say you've done. The 4th IPCC report DOES NOT include the survey from 2006 to 2008 of the Arctic sea that determined the RATE of methane emissions is increasing, nor does it include the data from recent permafrost surveys.

The increased melting in permafrost wasn't part of the 4th report--the IPCC thought that the permafrost was "safe", but what do you know, they will have to revise their thinking, and not for the first time. You, however, think that no revision is necessary, as if the IPCC knows everything they need to, which cannot be the case.

 

[adoucette]

The IPCC has multiple future Scenarios that feed into their projections.
The lowest growth Scenario has Methane growing for the next 40 years at much higher rates than it has been.

The IPCC has a complete section on Methane as well as discussions about the Arctic, Permafrost, etc etc, so if you want to know about the underlying science that drives the projections in the IPCC report I suggest you READ IT. Start with WG1 - The Scientific Basis.

Arthur

 

[arfa brane]

The lowest growth Scenario has Methane growing for the next 40 years at much higher rates than it has been.

How many scenarios include more than 2% total methane from the Arctic? How many of them allow for increased melting or for a sudden release from the seafloor?

 

[adoucette]

You have consistently maintained that methane FROM THE ARCTIC isn't a problem, but you produced data that is at least 2 years old to support this.

Two year old data is considered CURRENT in climate studies.

You also maintain that the contribution is 2% as if this is never going to change. The point I'm making is that SCIENTISTS are claiming different things than you are, even with all the research you say you've done. The 4th IPCC report DOES NOT include the survey from 2006 to 2008 of the Arctic sea that determined the RATE of methane emissions is increasing, nor does it include the data from recent permafrost surveys.

No, the posting of the 2% coming from the Arctic today helps put any reports of PERCENT increases in Arctic Methane releases in perspective. It's easy to create impressions where large percent increases, from POINT sources, are used to create a SCARE story, when the underlying percent is small and so even a large percent increase isn't important on a GLOBAL basis. For instance, if you show that a point source in the Arctic has increased by 50% recently, then what you have to consider is that unless ALL sources in the Arctic also increase by 50% that even then that would still only increase the global contribution to 3% from the Arctic. On the other hand I'd be much more concerned about a smaller percent increase in the Tropics, since that contributes so much to global methane levels that a small percent increase there would dwarf a large percent increase in the Arctic.

The increased melting in permafrost wasn't part of the 4th report--the IPCC thought that the permafrost was "safe", but what do you know, they will have to revise their thinking, and not for the first time. You, however, think that no revision is necessary, as if the IPCC knows everything they need to, which cannot be the case.

Total BS

Clearly you have NEVER taken the time to actually read the IPCC report, so quit stating what it does or does not contain.

IPCC AR4 - WG1 - Chapter 4
Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

The point Billy, is that bacterial organisms indeed can work at below 4C, not that these particular ones would be the ones that eat undersea methane. Arthur

I certainly did not claim that these particular one would. My claim, until you can show otherwise, is there are NONE in the Ocean that can eat CH4 at temperatures less than 4C so your suggestion that they did is FALSE. I admit I was surprised to learn the one very unique bacteria has evolved in a very unique, small Canadian saturated-salt spring that can eat CH4 below 4C.

That they exist in this one location in a strange Canadian, oxygen-free sulfur spring does not make your claim that bacteria destroys CH4 in the deep cold ocean valid. That claim is still FALSE.

 

[arfa brane]

adoucette: can you align your earlier claim that the Arctic [summers] are too short to allow the permafrost to melt below a certain threshold, with the IPCC AR4--WG1?

Are you saying the IPCC does know everything it needs to? Is that why you have all the answers?

Every counterclaim anyone else has made in the last 20 or so pages, you've shot down. At least, you've done this in your own mind.
You've dissed the increases in methane emissions from the Arctic. You've claimed that bacteria will deal with any problem. You've argued that Hansen's "hockey stick" is a fraud.

Now you're dissing the fact that the IPCC certainly did believe the permafrost wouldn't melt, or not enough to worry about. It's also true that the IPCC has revised its thinking on various scenarios: one example is the Tibetan plateau.

 

[iceaura]

Two year old data is considered CURRENT in climate studies.

Not if it's been supplanted - or especially, contradicted - by more recent findings.

The most recent, best supported, and presently relevant data is considered "current".

One of the dangerous aspects of the methane boom is that it would be almost invisible until it hit, and would then be very rapid. So we would need to be very alert to early warning signs, and take them seriously. That would be difficult, with such large piles of money and power determined to not see any such signs, and to dismiss any seen as trivial.

We need a firm, reliable way to counter that influence, so that we may evaluate the methane threat accurately. We need to step hard on the agents of these vested interests, in their reflexive denials of evidence and dismissals of potential consequences.

What would you suggest?

 

[adoucette]

adoucette: can you align your earlier claim that the Arctic [summers] are too short to allow the permafrost to melt below a certain threshold, with the IPCC AR4--WG1?

That's not what I said and quit acting like you have a clue what is in the IPCC reports.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Not if it's been supplanted - or especially, contradicted - by more recent findings.

They haven't though.

At least no one has published a study that indicates any great trend in the Arctic, because for climate studies one needs fairly long TRENDS.

With massive Oscillations in the climate systems (PDO, ENSO, NAO etc) any one year, or even a decade, does not a necesarily a climatic trend make.

What we do know is that the climate has been steadily warming since the mid 70s, and that the last decade was the warmest in our record based on surface measurments, and so when you have 40 years of warming and you see a report from 2006 which states:

The long-term growth rate of methane has declined steadily over the past 20 years, from about 15 ppb per year in the mid-1980s to about zero over the past six years. The reason for the decline is uncertain, but possibly involves a reduction or stabilisation in methane release from the oil and gas industry, as methane is now considered a valuable resource; in the 1960s, unwanted methane was commonly either burnt (flaring) or released under high pressure (venting). A worldwide trend to minimise leaks from natural gas reticulation networks, particularly in the former Soviet Union, might also have contributed to the trend.

...

Despite the observational evidence, atmospheric modellers continue to assume that methane is still growing in the background atmosphere and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/commentaries/atmosphere/climate-change.html

It gives you confidence that waming is so far not causing an excess amount of Methane to be released into the climate system and that the IPCC models already allow for significantly more methane than is in the atmosphere.

Then you then read from 2008 this report:

In 2008, globally averaged CH4 increased by 4.4 ± 0.6 ppb; the largest increase was in the tropics, while polar northern latitudes did not increase

Then likewise the assumption is that the tropics, and things like rice cultivation and deforestation remain the more important source of Methane growth.

As to your concern, of course we would see it, we monitor CH4 in the upper atmosphere of the entire globe from satellites and at the surface from a large network using many daily measurments across the globe, and in remote sites via flasks on a weekly basis.

Indeed we calculate global average methane levels down parts per billion and we publish the results onliine.

A big release anywhere on the globe would NOT go unnoticed.

As far as being "alert to early warning signs".

And then do what?

Arthur

 

[iceaura]

adoucette: can you align your earlier claim that the Arctic [summers] are too short to allow the permafrost to melt below a certain threshold, with the IPCC AR4--WG1?
”
That's not what I said

What you said was that increasing the average temps by only one or two degrees would make no significant difference in permafrost melting, because the midwinter temps in the permafrost zone would still be far too low to melt ice.

Which is even stupider. Arfa there is throwing you a bone - take it.

 

[adoucette]

I certainly did not claim that these particular one would. My claim, until you can show otherwise, is there are NONE in the Ocean that can eat CH4 at temperatures less than 4C so your suggestion that they did is FALSE. I admit I was surprised to learn the one very unique bacteria has evolved in a very unique, small Canadian saturated-salt spring that can eat CH4 below 4C.

That they exist in this one location in a strange Canadian, oxygen-free sulfur spring does not make your claim that bacteria destroys CH4 in the deep cold ocean valid. That claim is still FALSE.

No it's not, it shows that BACTERIA can trive at that low temperature.
Other reports show that Bacteria in the DEEP water of the Gulf were capable of consuming VAST quantities of Methane.

This report also shows that

There are some specialized bacteria that feed on methane called methanotrophic. A German-French team studied which methanotrophic bacteria could thrive in the ice-cold Arctic deep-sea, at -1 C

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Methane-Eating-Bacteria-Found-in-the-Icy-Arctic-Water-38414.shtml

So CLEARLY, they say that methanotrophic bacteria can TRIVE at even -1 C.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

What you said was that increasing the average temps by only one or two degrees would make no significant difference in permafrost melting, because the midwinter temps in the permafrost zone would still be far too low to melt ice.

Which is even stupider. Arfa there is throwing you a bone - take it.

No, that is NOT what I said either.

the melting ONLY occurs for about 2 to 3 months of the year, so it takes a long time for the warming to progress even one foot lower in the peat bog than it did the years before, so any release of CH4 will be GRADUAL and the small additonal amount of CH4 that is released in this short period of time will be taken care of by natural forces before the next melt season.

Why, because the frost-free period only exceeds six months in the North Caucasus and varies with latitude from five to three months in the European section and from three months to less than two in Siberia.

http://www.travelsignposts.com/Russia/russia-weather.php

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

we would need to be very alert to early warning signs, and take them seriously. That would be difficult, with such large piles of money and power determined to not see any such signs, and to dismiss any seen as trivial.

Who is supressing any such information about Methane levels in the globe?

We need a firm, reliable way to counter that influence, so that we may evaluate the methane threat accurately. We need to step hard on the agents of these vested interests, in their reflexive denials of evidence and dismissals of potential consequences.

Again, what influence are you talking about that is preventing us from evaluating the possible impact of Methane?

Who has a vested interest in AGW Methane production besides rice farmers and cattle/sheep ranchers?

Who is denying evidence of Methane release? Source please?

As we have seen, the IPCC figures for Methane release are higher then what we have seen in the environment, but because Methane is somewhat less than 20% of the total forcing and even though the rate of growth they projected (minimum of ~20 ppb per year for next 40 years) is about 3 X actual, the extra ~12 or so ppb per year isn't that big of a deal (considering the range of the total estimates) and so while they are making the models run a tiny bit warmer at this point the IPCC hasn't yet lowered the CH4 projections, and even if they do for the next report I still don't think you will notice a change in the GCM outputs.

Arthur

 

[arfa brane]

That's not what I said and quit acting like you have a clue what is in the IPCC reports.

When are you going to stop acting like you're a climate expert?

About what you've said:

The Tundra isn't that large compared to the size of the globe.
The melting only occurs for a small part of the year.

When people talk about Melting Tundra, they have to be clear, this is an effect in LATE SUMMER and doesn't last that long.

As far as worrying about the Tundra, it's been warming in the Arctic since the mid 70s, so we have nearly 40 years of warming already demonstrated in the global CH4 levels. The reason it isn't having much impact is it freezes up every winter and only thaws just a bit further down each year.

It looks like you're trying to be reassuring, like you're saying "there isn't a big problem". Even when there is a problem, you claim it isn't "much" of a problem.

I think that's called hubris (no, I know it is). That is what I'm attacking, your attitude.
The attitude that says: "I know all about the so-called problem, and you obviously haven't read any IPCC reports like I have". Reading a report and understanding it aren't the same thing.

 

[adoucette]

Well in comparison to you I am an expert, while in comparison to real climate scientists, I'm just someone who reads and appreciates their work.

And no, I'm not overestimating my qualifications since that was simply a paraphrasing of other scientific data:

tropical wetlands contribute 52 to 58% of global emissions, with the remainder coming from the extra-tropics, 2% of which is from Arctic latitudes ” and

“ In 2008, globally averaged CH4 increased by 4.4 ± 0.6 ppb; the largest increase was in the tropics, while polar northern latitudes did not increase.

So one source provides magnitude of the Arctic emissions of CH4 in comparison to the rest of the globe and that shows it is a relatively small contributor and the other source shows that there is no great increase going on in the Arctic sector either.

So, NO I don't think its hubris when one is simply posting common factual data and linking that to information gleaned from other referencable scientific sources.

You on the other hand have nothing but arrogance that somehow without even reading the frigging IPCC reports you think you know what they do or don't contain.

Arthur

 

[arfa brane]

tropical wetlands contribute 52 to 58% of global emissions, with the remainder coming from the extra-tropics, 2% of which is from Arctic latitudes ” and

“ In 2008, globally averaged CH4 increased by 4.4 ± 0.6 ppb; the largest increase was in the tropics, while polar northern latitudes did not increase.

So, NO I don't think its hubris when one is simply posting common factual data and linking that to information gleaned from other referencable scientific sources.

You on the other hand have nothing but arrogance that somehow without even reading the frigging IPCC reports you think you know what they do or don't contain.

No, you have nothing BUT arrogance and hubris. YOUR conclusions about the state of climate science, or the climate itself, are full of what you think is "the truth about the climate problem". You've been reassuring everyone there is plenty of room for error, after all the IPCC have made projections that exceed the measured levels.

You've been trying to portray the science as a done deal: there are "plenty" of satellites, the tundra melting doesn't matter "too much", bacteria can live in deep, cold parts of the ocean, so they are going to be a natural sink for methane, and so on.

It's really just you trying to rationalise the debate, isn't it?
You aren't doing as well as you think.

 

[adoucette]

Better than you.

Why?

A few posts back you complained that I was using 2 year old data, but when I went to the link that you posted to support your claim that CH4 was increasing in the Arctic, what did I find:

Shakhova's team took detailed measurements of methane levels in the water column over the Siberian Arctic shelf during six research cruises from 2003 to 2008.

Well what do you know, though your report was from 2010, the data was also 2 years old, and more to the point, while you were using this to claim that there was a lot more methane being released, what do the actual global totals show?

Well for 2003 through 2006 there was virtually no global increase in methane at all and though it did increase just a bit in 07 and 2008, the results also show that the largest increase was in the tropics, while polar northern latitudes did not increase.

OOPS.

Arthur

 

[arfa brane]

Well what do you know, though your report was from 2010, the data was also 2 years old, and more to the point, while you were using this to claim that there was a lot more methane being released,

You see what you're doing, saying I "was using this to claim that there was a lot more methane being released", is not what I was doing at all. I was repeating what someone else had said.

Well for 2003 through 2006 there was virtually no global increase in methane at all and though it did increase just a bit in 07 and 2008, the results also show that the largest increase was in the tropics, while polar northern latitudes did not increase.

So what? What does that have to do with the survey by Shakova's team?
You've used this argument several times now, as if it's some kind of magical statement.

 

[adoucette]

You see what you're doing, saying I "was using this to claim that there was a lot more methane being released", is not what I was doing at all. I was repeating what someone else had said.

Same difference

So what? What does that have to do with the survey by Shakova's team?
You've used this argument several times now, as if it's some kind of magical statement.

Because Shakova's team was in the POLAR NORTHERN LATITUDES and thetime frame overlaps the global methane data that I came up with:

six research cruises from 2003 to 2008.

And so we can see that while they might have found a lot of methane where they were, that doesn't mean it wasn't there the year before, or that the amounts were even significant on a GLOBAL basis, which is all that really matters.

Arthur

 

[arfa brane]

six research cruises from 2003 to 2008.

And so we can see that while they might have found a lot of methane where they were, that doesn't mean it wasn't there the year before, or that the amounts were even significant on a GLOBAL basis, which is all that matters

To you.

so when we see, that for many of those years there was no growth at all in global methane and that in the years there was a small increase, it wasn't attributable to the northern Latitudes, it makes me fairly comfortable that what they found was not that large and/or unique.

It wasn't noticed until recently, how "unique" does that make it (??). By recently, I mean "within a timescale that indicates a secular trend".